Fair enough. But what you're describing sounds like something that has to do with your "artistic vision" rather than with photography itself. When people try to create "extreme proportions" in a photograph they usually stitch instead of crop.

Taking the time to stitch a photograph is not always practical. But that aside, it can also be said there is conceptual difference between the processes of stitching and cropping. In stitching you are doing it to see more. In cropping you are doing it to see less. I'm also not understanding why you're trying to decouple the artistic vision and the photography. The artistic vision is to produce a photograph that has been extremely cropped, so it has everything to do with the photography itself.

Quote

Ah yes! I see the relationship you're trying to make, but somehow it escapes me what daguerreotypes have to do with cropping. The only way to crop a daguerreotype is with a saw. As you say, different processes result in different results. And that proves...?

It is another analogy trying to illustrate the point, which is that it's not always just the end result that matters. Some artists are very concerned with how you get to the end result. The choice of one process over another can shape the context of how the finished art is viewed or interpreted. So a photographer may make a deliberate choice such as "I will not crop any of my photos" and that becomes an integral part of the process, much as a photographer may choose to shoot only with film or only in black-and-white or whatever.

Once that choice is made, that photographer needs to follow through with that choice to maintain the "authenticity" of their artistic vision. But, if another photographer does not follow the same choice in their process, that doesn't make their work any less authentic. A cropped photograph is no less authentic as a piece of art than an uncropped photograph, much like a digital print is no less authentic than a daguerrotype. The choice in process can make a piece of art different, but not inherently better.

This is the old "you should respect my photos because I don't [crop/edit/etc] them"It's actually a very boring argument I prefer to respect photos for what they are and not because they were made in some way.

"At the risk of getting into a argument of semantics, I think you are not seeing the meaning behind the statement. Which is that sometimes the process is a defining characteristic of the art. A good example I can give is of a recent exhibition I saw where the artist created sculptures resembling animals out of old furniture. In addition to the actual physical pieces on display, he explained how the process was integral to his work. He would not ever buy his materials: he would have to find his furniture. He would go out into alleyways, drive around dingy neighborhoods, looking for discarded furniture, metaphorically “hunting” his prey. In his workshop, he would be sure to keep every piece of his “kill” during the manufacture of the sculpture, and every bit that wasn’t used for the sculpture was carefully stored in jars, labeled and dated (right down to the sawdust). In other words, the art wasn’t just the resulting sculptures, it was the whole process."

Oh Welder, what an unfortunate example you chose to illustrate your point.

Most photographers are not certifiably insane even though some buyers are.

This is the old "you should respect my photos because I don't [crop/edit/etc] them"It's actually a very boring argument I prefer to respect photos for what they are and not because they were made in some way.

Luis, Sorry, but I have to ask: did you actually read the thread before you made this post?

I understand that not all art appeals to everyone, and that's fine. But I would think that as artists, photographic or otherwise, we should be able to at least be able to display a little open mindedness. At least enough to not be so quickly dismissive of someone's work. (Regardless of the artist's state of mind, I would add that this was one of the most popular and successful exhibitions at the museum while it was there).

Quote

"At the risk of getting into a argument of semantics, I think you are not seeing the meaning behind the statement. Which is that sometimes the process is a defining characteristic of the art. A good example I can give is of a recent exhibition I saw where the artist created sculptures resembling animals out of old furniture. In addition to the actual physical pieces on display, he explained how the process was integral to his work. He would not ever buy his materials: he would have to find his furniture. He would go out into alleyways, drive around dingy neighborhoods, looking for discarded furniture, metaphorically “hunting” his prey. In his workshop, he would be sure to keep every piece of his “kill” during the manufacture of the sculpture, and every bit that wasn’t used for the sculpture was carefully stored in jars, labeled and dated (right down to the sawdust). In other words, the art wasn’t just the resulting sculptures, it was the whole process."

Oh Welder, what an unfortunate example you chose to illustrate your point.

Most photographers are not certifiably insane even though some buyers are.

As I remarked, more buyers are insane than are photographers; as for your 'artist' being considered artist or not is hardly a matter of open-mindedness, but a matter of common sense and observation; charlatan come to mind, but that might be unfair. Remember the infamous bricks at the Tate? In a true example of dead horses still being kicked, I saw them, recently, quoted as an example of how what was though crap then is now accepted as valid... really? Not the way I interpret the intervening years, but few in the art business will ever be inclined to cut their own gizzards; why should they, when the lemmings run to form, time after time?

But, my inner view of this is simple: I don't accept that sort of nonsense and that's cool; it's when I follow the mindless path of the credulous moron that I shall start to feel concern - or maybe not: don't the gods first make carzy those they wish to destroy? Let's hope we both stay sane!

The problem I have with the anti-crop crowd is the implicit condescension in their arguments. Russ throws around words like 'sloppy' and 'lazy', and the implication is that anybody who doesn't subscribe to his view on cropping is just "banging away and hoping you can find a picture later in Photoshop." While I respect Russ's opinion on many other things, I happen to think this sentiment is hogwash. There are plenty of valid reasons to crop in post, many of which have already been mentioned concerning aspect ratios, lack of 100% viewfinders, etc.

I'd also point out that arguments which hold for one's preferred genre or style of shooting don't necessarily apply to the more general case, and may in fact be completely invalid for some other types of photography.

As just one example, consider the situation where you have 24mm and 35mm lenses, but the composition you want is really something closer to 28mm. What do you do? If you say move, or "zoom with your feet", I would say "wrong answer". I won't argue whether or not zooming with your feet is a good approach to documentary/street photography; but as a landscape shooter I can tell you it often doesn't work for me. For a lot of the shots I take, precise selection of perspective (meaning, camera position) is key to the image. Moving forward to shoot an un-cropped 24mm shot, or backing up to use the 35mm, would result in substantially different images from what I would get by using the 24mm at my original location and cropping after the fact.

For landscape photography, even small changes in perspective can make or break an image; and I'm sure that's equally true for some other types of photography as well. So zooming with your feet just doesn't cut it. Sometimes, using a zoom lens might allow you to get your desired crop in-camera; but I often use the perspective controls on my T/S lenses, and I'm not going to give up that capability just so that I can say I got the crop right in-camera.

As I remarked, more buyers are insane than are photographers; as for your 'artist' being considered artist or not is hardly a matter of open-mindedness, but a matter of common sense and observation; charlatan come to mind, but that might be unfair.

Yeah and lots of people have claimed that photography isn't art either. Ayn Rand had quite a nice logical explanation of why photography isn't art, for instance. So who's "common sense" are we to rely on?

Yeah and lots of people have claimed that photography isn't art either. Ayn Rand had quite a nice logical explanation of why photography isn't art, for instance. So who's "common sense" are we to rely on?

Photography can be what you want it to be. From a snap shot that records the scene through to heavily manipulated images. It all depends on the audience it is aimed at? As to the process, authenticity etc etc then that doesn't show up in the final print .... it is for the satisfaction of the person who processed it. Hopefully the next thread that is started on this subject will be quickly locked by the moderator and we all can go back to politics?

Yeah and lots of people have claimed that photography isn't art either. Ayn Rand had quite a nice logical explanation of why photography isn't art, for instance. So who's "common sense" are we to rely on?

Personally, I'd begin with relying on mine, the one that counts most with me. Eff the crowd - what does it know other than how to make more noise than I can?

As to the process, authenticity etc etc then that doesn't show up in the final print .... it is for the satisfaction of the person who processed it.

Like I said, authenticity is only applicable personally as it relates to the artist fulfilling their vision. Process itself has nothing to do with whether art is authentic, good, bad or whatever. But process can set up a broader philosophical framework for the work. Or it can be irrelevant. That is up to the artist.

I personally fall on the side of "it's the final image that matters" and I use whatever means necessary to get there without self-imposed restrictions. I only ask people to judge what they see. But some photographers do adpot restrictions as part of their process (e.g. not ever cropping) and it's important to them. You can say it's only for their own satisfaction, and you might even be right. But if they make the claim that their process is important to their artistic concept, I will respect that and at least try and understand where they are coming from with the art. Because after all, art would be really boring if everyone else just made art and thought about art the same way I do.

Jeff, I assume you've read the thread. How about summing up what you think my view on cropping is.

I've read the thread and I'm also familiar with your statements from similar threads in the past. Your position on the matter is quite well known. You would probably like to think this statement of yours sums up your position:

Quote

It's worthwhile trying to get the picture right in the viewfinder before you trip the shutter. That's when you have options that'll never be open to you during post-processing.

But the thing is, you also constantly say stuff like the two statements below:

Quote

You're never going to convince the loose shooters that cropping isn't the way to make photographs with visual integrity. But HCB wasn't talking about "authenticity." He was talking about integrity of vision. That's the thing that the croppers don't understand, and as a consequence, miss.

Quote

In other words, shooting loose and hoping to find a picture later not only is sloppy work, it's lazy work and a sign that you're not quite sure what you want to do -- a deadly state of mind for a photographer.

The implication about photographers who don't share your philosphy on cropping is quite clear, and it should come as no surprise to you that people might find such statements condescending.

There are plenty of reasons one may choose to crop after shooting; the fact that some of these reasons haven't occurred to you or don't apply to your style of shooting doesn't make them any less valid.